Grizzly » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:36 pm wrote:The demolition of WTC7 has already been ruled a controlled demolition by a world leading expert who later died while his car crashed against a tree.

Interview with Controlled Demo Expert, Danny Jowenko, confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose.

You know, like somebody else we've talked about ...

I did not know that. I remember watching him at the time. In this video about his death, they have clips of building seven in close up where the demoliton charge explosions are as clear as day, knocking out windows (which I've never seen before... so, is it real? Anyone?)

Tallies with observations I made about Bob and Bri's video years ago. (The version below is what I saw back then. Recent versions doing the rounds appear to be altered.) Similar flashes, many very distinct, in the minute or two after the first plane, occurring in only two buildings, several over the top half of Tower 1 and few less visible flashes from building 7 (I watched the entire video once for each building in view, to be sure. But having said that, as I indicate above, other versions doing the rounds on youtube appear to have all these effects either missing, scrubbed or muted.)

Takes a huge dose of denial not to recognize WTC-7 as a controlled demolition.

Lots changed in 2000-2001.

The one thing that caught me a little off guard here when I first came here maybe 11 years ago (jesus fucking christ) was what I felt to be a visceral disdain for the controlled demolition hypothesis.

I recognize that getting stuck in that rut is not productive, as was not calculating bullet trajectories and theorizing on sniper locations in Dealey Plaza, but to me, it seems pretty clear that the buildings were blown up. Just the basic fact of them being PULVERIZED. Why did the concrete turn to dust? When has that happened in a building collapse ever, before or since? Massive, multi-ton steel beams flying forcefully outward from the collapse/explosion. Just basic facts like that. It may be not productive to get stuck on that but it sure as hell is not productive jeering at people who believe in controlled demolition on 9/11, especially if both sides agree on the basic deep state culpability in the event itself on the whole.

-I don't like hoodlums.-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.

Come on, people. It didn't happen by chance. They had put too much work into planning their subsequent world domination projects for it to simply be fortuitous. Look how quickly they rolled out the anthrax scare, the yellow cake, the incubators, and the actual invasion of Iraq when the supposed mastermind, Bin Laden, and crew were set up elsewhere.

Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant

Pele'sDaughter » Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:38 pm wrote:Come on, people. It didn't happen by chance. They had put too much work into planning their subsequent world domination projects for it to simply be fortuitous. Look how quickly they rolled out the anthrax scare, the yellow cake, the incubators, and the actual invasion of Iraq when the supposed mastermind, Bin Laden, and crew were set up elsewhere.

And the effect would NOT have been even on the same scale had the Twin Towers been left standing. They had to go.

Plus the whole asbestos thing and them being a very pricey prospect for renovations.

-I don't like hoodlums.-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.

Out of the blue, a new source came forward with information that in 1989 there was a plan being designed and priced to put up scaffolding, take the WTC towers down and rebuild them. The reason stated was not only asbestos related, but also because of a considerable design flaw in the WTC towers involving galvanic corrosion resulting from direct contact of dissimilar metals. In this instance, the heavy exterior aluminum panels were reportedly directly connected to the steel superstructure of the WTC towers. The price in 1989 was reportedly $5.6 billion to do this demolition and rebuilding to correct what would be a serious design flaw.

If that is the case, there would have been rapid and very damaging corrosion to the steel superstructure due to a process that is called galvanic corrosion. The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired for that same reason where the copper exterior had over time come into contact with the iron skeleton structure inside that makes the shape of the monument, so the process can occur in structures standing in air.

Evidently someone did not want to spend $5.6 billion (1989 dollars) to tear the WTC towers down and rebuild them properly, without the asbestos and without the defect that would rapidly deteriorate the superstructure of the building.

NICHOLAS KAMM VIA GETTY IMAGESThis story was produced and originally published by Newsweek and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt, the agency’s head, quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance “100 percent safe, once applied.”

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the association of the chemical with health risks was part of a mob-created conspiracy. “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented,” he wrote.

The Trump EPA’s decision came in response to new amendments made to the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016. The additions to the bill mandate that the EPA perform safety reviews of certain chemicals, require testing and public notice of safety info for said chemicals and allow the EPA to ban certain uses of asbestos (previously, the EPA did not have the authority to do so).

The EPA announced last Friday that it would evaluate and require approval for new uses of asbestos but would not evaluate the health risks of asbestos already in the environment. “The end result will be a seriously inadequate risk evaluation that fails to address major contributors to the heavy and growing toll of asbestos mortality and disease in the United States,” said Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in a statement.

Reinstein, whose husband developed Mesothelioma and passed away in 2006, told Newsweek that she met with Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, on two occasions along with representatives from the AFL-CIO and the International Association of Fire Fighters. The group explained the hazards of legacy asbestos and presented over 100 studies confirming that low-dose asbestos exposure caused disease, but were shut down by Beck, she said. Beck was previously a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, a lobbyist group that represents Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto and ExxonMobil Chemical.

In August of 2016, the American Chemistry Council sent a letter to the EPA urging the agency to carefully consider its decision regarding asbestos evaluation as the chemical is essential to the chlor-alkali industry, which creates chlorine and sodium hydroxide for industrial use. They asked the EPA to“take this into consideration as it determines whether to select asbestos among the initial 10 chemicals for risk evaluation” under the changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Chemical lobbyist agencies including American Chemical Council held at least four meetings with the EPA last year regarding asbestos policy.

“If you don’t evaluate the dangerous legacy of asbestos you don’t know how much contamination still exists in the United States,” Reinstein told Newsweek. “We know it’s in our homes, schools, workplace and environment but the average American can’t identify and evaluate the risk. We have taken risk evaluation off the table.”

The bipartisan updates made to the Toxic Substances Control Act by Congress were intended to give the EPA the ability to ban the use of these substances, some senators say. The environmental agency attempted to ban the use in 1989, but a federal court ruled that it lacked the authority to do so.

“In a bipartisan compromise, Congress moved to patch up the holes in our chemical review system when it updated the Toxic Substances Control Act. But Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration are presiding over an attack on not just the spirit, but also the actual content of the reform law,” said Senator Edward J. Markey, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement. “Thousands of people die from asbestos-related cancers every year. Asbestos and other toxic substances will continue to contaminate our environment because Trump administration policies are contaminating the EPA.”

There’s a lack of basic information in the United States about the extent to which public and private structures are contaminated by the chemical. A recent report found that the government has no record of how many schools contain asbestos materials.

“EPA’s refusal to address longstanding concerns around the use and disposal of asbestos is further proof that Administrator Pruitt will bend over backwards to help industry, but won’t lift a finger to protect public health,” said Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The EPA did say that it would take unprecedented action on asbestos by requiring new manufacturers and importers of asbestos to receive EPA approval before importing or processing the chemical. Reinstein, however, said that this is not a ban and that the largest users of asbestos will continue to use it.

Fifty-five countries including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Israel and Japan have completely banned asbestos use. The White House referred Newsweek to the EPA and the EPA did not respond to a request for comment. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/do ... reddit.com

Pulitzer-winning reporter @DavidCayJ: “The evidence suggests Trump is a traitor...He comes from a family of criminals. His grandfather made his fortune running whorehouses in Seattle. His father's business partner was a Gambino crime family assoc."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=bDiX8zDv4Ak

Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.They could still get him out of office.But instead, they want mass death.Don’t forget that.

Today, we invite you to watch the inspiring but sobering remarks of Justice In Focus keynote speaker Daniel Sheehan, a public interest attorney renowned for litigating several high-profile cases involving various state crimes against democracy. You may also watch the entire 16 hours of proceedings in the Justice In Focus video archive by making a suggested donation of $10, though we welcome donations of any amount: http://911justiceinfocus.org/

Last edited by Grizzly on Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”

Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Open to Helping Victims’ Lawsuit if U.S. Doesn’t Seek Death PenaltyGuantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s pending trial is still in flux

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is seen in these undated photos released by the FBI. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGESBy Jess Bravin and Andrew RestucciaJuly 29, 2019 2:53 pm ETWASHINGTON—Alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has said he may be willing to help victims of the terrorist attacks in their lawsuit against Saudi Arabia if the U.S. government forgoes seeking the death penalty against him at a Guantanamo Bay military commission.

Mr. Mohammed’s offer was disclosed in a Friday filing in the victims’ federal lawsuit in New York, which accuses the Saudi government of helping coordinate the 2001 suicide attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives when terrorists crashed hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and, after passengers resisted, a Pennsylvania field. Riyadh has denied complicity in the attacks.

Separately, President Trump signed legislation on Monday that funds medical claims from victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for the rest of their lives.

In the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, plaintiffs’ lawyers had contacted three of the five Guantanamo detainees accused in the Sept. 11 conspiracy to request depositions. In the Friday filing, a status letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, the lawyers wrote that earlier Friday, Mr. Mohammed’s counsel told them their client wouldn’t consent to a deposition “at the present time.”

But the lawyer said that “the primary driver” of this decision is the “capital nature of the prosecution” and that “[i]n the absence of a potential death sentence much broader cooperation would be possible.”

A lawyer for the Saudi government, Michael Kellogg, declined to comment.

Mr. Mohammed, who also is suspected in the murder of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl, previously took a more defiant position.

At a June 2008 Guantanamo hearing, Mr. Mohammed interrupted when a military judge described the proceeding as “a death-penalty case.” It was a “martyr case,” the defendant said. “This is what I wish. I’ve been looking to be martyred for a long time,” he said.

“A lot has happened in the past 10 years,” said a person familiar with the Guantanamo proceedings. “The 9/11 defendants are not as interested as they once were in martyring themselves.”

In 2017, the Defense Department official overseeing the proceedings, Harvey Rishikof, began exploring a potential plea bargain with the Sept. 11 defendants that would exchange guilty pleas for life sentences.

Mr. Rishikof is said to have been concerned that the prosecution had been undermined by the torture inflicted upon Mr. Mohammed and other defendants at secret Central Intelligence Agency facilities overseas—an issue that has mired the case in years of pretrial hearings and raised the possibility that a military or federal court could sanction government misconduct by barring the death penalty.

After word spread of plea discussions, Mr. Rishikof was fired by then Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for what Mr. Mattis said were unrelated reasons.

One of the main goals of those now-scotched plea negotiations was obtaining cooperation from the defendants, the person familiar with the Guantanamo proceedings said.

“One of the main things that the 9/11 defendants have to offer is closure, particularly closure for the victims,” this person said. “With capital charges gone, there is an opportunity to tell the story of 9/11 once and for all.”

James Kreindler, a lawyer for the Sept. 11 victims suing Saudi Arabia, said his team contacted Mr. Mohammed and his co-defendants as part of wide-ranging discovery in the case.

“We’re trying to leave no stone unturned,” Mr. Kreindler said Monday. “But who knows whether they’ll ever testify or be honest or be cooperative?” He added that his clients take no position on the death penalty for Guantanamo defendants.

The legislation to fund victims’ medical claims, signed during a ceremony at the White House Rose Garden Monday, appropriates funds for all current and future approved claims made through the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund until 2090, at an estimated cost of $10.2 billion over the next 10 years.

“You have gone far beyond your duty to us, and today we strive to fulfill our sacred duty to you,” Mr. Trump told first responders, families of victims and survivors of the attacks who attended the White House event.

The legislation passed the Senate last week and the House earlier this month, both with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The fund was established to compensate the victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as relatives of those who were killed and first responders who suffered health consequences from exposure to debris at the sites.https://www.wsj.com/articles/alleged-9- ... 0?mod=e2tw

Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.They could still get him out of office.But instead, they want mass death.Don’t forget that.